Governments or bureaucratic bodies regulating internet is a bad idea

Any proposal that strings together the words 'regulation' and 'internet' almost immediately connotes 'control' . Not surprisingly has the idea of controlling or regulating the internet often emanated from countries with an unsavoury reputation when it comes to freedom of speech.

In a broader perspective, given the inter-connectedness globalisation entails, of which the internet is a key part, allowing individuals across the globe a mutual reach and communication truly revolutionary, it makes little sense to think of the internet in terms of nation-states.

It is, actually , one of the state-less parts of modern lives. And it should be kept that way. The internet does not belong to anyone, and it is counter-productive to have a bunch of nation-states seeking control through regulations and oversight, as the CIRP proposal entails.

It makes even less sense to have a bureaucratic UN body doing so. The argument advanced in favour of doing so, that of ending control 'of the North' (read, mainly the US), therefore seems specious, given the fact that these proposals might lead to individuals and global citizens losing their stake in the internet.

CIRP might well end up destroying the 'multiple-stakeholder' principle, which, in effect, is the situation now, while purportedly formalising it. Sure, there are concerns regarding cyber security and piracy et al. But it could be argued that extant laws, including in India, are adequate to handle these concerns.

Individual states can fine-tune these laws, or collectively frame global guidelines - without any tampering whatsoever with the legitimate and necessary freedoms the internet offers.

That these proposals closely follow developments like the 'Arab Spring' , where much was said about the role of citizens using the internet to counter oppressive regimes, might be just incidental.

But no government should be allowed to determine how billions around the world use the internet.